Strategic Studies

Final Exam

By: Miranda Cortizo

Chosen Question: Some argue that nuclear proliferation could be a good thing for interna-
tional stability…. Do you agree? Why?

Number of Words: 1993

Introduction

Nuclear warfare involves non conventional weapons that can instantly produce physi-
cal mass destruction. Their creation implied a revolution, not only in warfare, but also in in-
ternational security matters. The prospect of total annihilation made states more likely to
think twice before entering into a full-fledged war.
The United States of America was the first country to achieve nuclear capabilities in
1945. Under the Truman administration, the first and only nuclear attack was launched into
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in the complete devastation of the cities and over 180,000
civilian and military casualties1. After this event, the proliferation of such weapons usually
has a negative connotation and causes widespread fear. Furthermore, there is a nuclear taboo
in place —a normative prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons—2. However, this did
not stop the Soviet Union from quickly following the Unites States and reaching nuclear par-
ity in the 1950. By the cold war era Britain, France and China had joined the nuclear club too.
Nonetheless, there is a Non Proliferation Treaty that bans the atomic bomb manufac-
ture which was signed by 61 countries in 1968 and has 190 participants to this day. 3 How-
ever, Pakistan, India and North Korea acquired a nuclear status after the treaty was signed;
and even though not formally admitted, there have been sufficient indications that Israel has
the atomic bomb as well. Today, there are many debates as to whether Iran should attain nu-
clear capacities in order to restore the balance of power in the Middle East. There are many
scholars which claim that nuclear proliferation is actually a good thing for international sta-
bility, since atomic bombs would increase the cost of war, making countries more cautious
and less likely to engage in a military conflict. The overwhelming destructive power of nu-
clear arsenal can be used as a force of peace. 4
The proliferation of this type of weapons remains a very controversial issue. The pur-
pose of this essay will be to assess the extent to which nuclear proliferation increases or jeop-
ardizes international stability. The concept of international stability refers not only to the ab-
sence of war, but also to a clear balance of power. This implies a system of states where there
is no single actor that can impose the law to others. Similar military resources from great
powers prevent one state from being the only dominant force.5 In fact, the amount of signifi-
1 Total Casualties | The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents Last accessed:
21/04/2020
2 David Lake, “World Politics: Interests, Interactions and Institutions”. (Fourth Edition, 2019). Page 476
3 David Lake, “World Politics: Interests, Interactions and Institutions”. (Fourth Edition, 2019). Page 600
4 David Lake, “World Politics: Interests, Interactions and Institutions”. (Fourth Edition, 2019). Page 636
5 David Lake, “World Politics: Interests, Interactions and Institutions”. (Fourth Edition, 2019). Page 192
cant actors defines the system as unipolar, bipolar or multipolar. The proliferation of nuclear
weapons directly affect the international and regional balance of power, and therefore the sys-
tem’s stability. This paper will analyse if it is in a positive or a negative manner. The main
theoretical framework used will be the works of Kenneth Waltz, which exposes the positive
effects of nuclear proliferation; and Scott Sagan, who has a more pessimistic approach. Fur-
thermore, the case study of Pakistan and India will be addressed in order to have an empirical
approach on the matter.
Benefits to Nuclear Proliferation

The main benefit of nuclear weapons can be defined by an old concept: deterrence.
Deterrence is “the manipulation of an adversary’s estimation of the cost/benefit calculation of
taking a given action. By reducing prospective benefits or increasing prospective costs (or
both), one can convince the adversary to avoid taking action.”6 Classic balance of power sys-
tems are based on deterrence as a strategy for seeking security. 7 However, in the atomic bomb
era, only nuclear powers with second strike forces can deter the use of nuclear weapons. 8
Therefore, the only way to balance the power of the international system is for more than one
country to have nuclear capabilities. It is also important to note that deterrence only works if
the states possessing atomic bombs have credible intentions and capacities. The latter is mea-
sured by resources, and the former by the making of threats and warnings. Rivalries where
both powers have credible nuclear competence are more likely to have an outcome alternative
to war on its full scale, than states with conventional arms. This can be explained with what
Joseph Nye calls “crystal ball effect”: “everyone knows that if a force gets out of hand all the
parties to a conflict face catastrophe. With conventional weapons the crystal ball is clouded.
With nuclear weapons it's perfectly clear”. 9 In fact, the merit of the cold war being known as
“the long peace” rather than “world war three”, can be mostly attributed to the creation of
such weapons. The fear of mutual assured destruction kept the struggle from becoming a
“hot” one. This can be appreciated in the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962, where both superpow-
ers (United States and the USSR) were in the verge of nuclear war, but the high cost of this
kind of warfare stopped them from taking military action. This event led to a period of relax-
ation of tensions in the cold war known as “detente”. On this account, contrary to common
speculation, the proliferation of weapons that have the capacity to destroy the world actually
make it more peaceful due to nuclear deterrence.
Furthermore, “conventional weapons put a premium on striking first to gain the initial
advantage and set the course of the war. Nuclear weapons eliminate this premium. The initial
6 Long, 2008: 7
7The State of Deterrence in International Politics Today. Patrick M. Morgan (Published online: 13 Apr 2012)
Page 86.
8 Theory of International Politics: Kenneth Waltz. (1979 by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Philip-
pines copyright 1979 by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc)
9 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 104
advantage is insignificant if the cost of gaining it is half a dozen cities”10. As Waltz affirms,
“nuclear weapons make the cost of war seem frighteningly high and thus discourage states
from starting any wars that might lead to their use”.11 Without the ‘striking first’ advantage,
leaders behave more sensibly. Therefore, international stability increases due to nuclear pro-
liferation.
Moreover, the security dilemma claim made by anti proliferation scholars which
states that if one country gets the atomic bomb, others will follow, is ignoring the fact that the
US has a nuclear umbrella. For instance, Japan and South Korea are under the protection of
the United States, and therefore do not need to develop their own nuclear program. On the
contrary, there has been a general proliferation slowdown.12
In addition, nuclear weapons can positively affect the regional balance of power. An
empirical example of this theory can be seen in South Asia. India and Pakistan have histori-
cally been in dispute over the terrain of Kashmir. Pakistanis claim that due to the fact that
80% of the population in Kashmir is muslim, for reasons of religious affinity the land is in-
herently theirs. On the other hand, Hindu India believes that the Kashmir Maharajh (indian
prince) being hindu, grants them the legitimate claim over the territory. This led to continu-
ous clashes between both countries. There were three devastating wars from 1947-48, 1965
and 197113 . India surpassed Pakistan five times in territory and miliar capacities. “For Pak-
istan to compete conventionally with India was economically impossible”.14 However, the
year 1998 was a game changer in the dynamic of the conflict, since the two states formally
announced that they had nuclear capacity to retaliate in response to major attacks. Shamshad
Ahmad, the Pakistani foreign secretary stated that: “In South Asia nuclear deterrence may
usher in an era of durable peace between Pakistan and India”.15 Shankar Bajpai, former In-
dian ambassador said that “Pakistan’s quest for a nuclear capability stems from its fear of its
larger neighbor, removing that fear should open up immense possibilities. 16 Furthermore,
both countries felt more protected from an increasingly powerful and nuclear China. Ergo,
the proliferation of nuclear weapons to India and Pakistan increased the international stability
by adjusting the balance of power in the region.

10 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 121
11 Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers, Number 171 (Lon-
don: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981)
12 The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation: Perception and Reality:Jacques E. C. Hymans. Page 285
13 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 89
14 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 112
15 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 111
16 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 112
 Nevertheless, after the nuclear development, a war did unleash in 1999 known as the
‘Kargil War’. Pakistani forces crossed the line of control and occupied indian territory in the
Kargil district.17However, the escalation of the conflict was limited. In fact, Waltz questions
the clash being called a war at all . He stated that “the obvious conclusion to draw from
Kargil is that the presence of nuclear weapons prevented escalation from major skirmish to
full-scale war. This contrasts with the bloody 1965 war, where both parties were armed only
with conventional weapons.”18Nonetheless, the world was paralyzed by this struggle due to a
tangible fear of escalation to nuclear war.
All in all, this section of the essay provides theoretical and empirical evidence that the
proliferation of nuclear weapons can be positive for international stability. The bargaining
range of both sides changes since the cost of war increases.19 The historical track record of
nuclear weapons being used as a force of peace is encouraging.

17 Indo-Pakistani-Wars.Wikipedia. Last accessed 22/04/2020

18 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 115
19 David Lake, “World Politics: Interests, Interactions and Institutions”. (Fourth Edition, 2019). Page 125
Problems Imposed by Nuclear Proliferation

On the other hand, many scholars agree with Kennedy’s statement that nuclear prolif-
eration is “the greatest possible danger” facing humanity.20
One of the main concerns with proliferation is the fact that weapons of mass destruc-
tion are more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists. This is a matter of simple probability.
The grave danger of “new” terrorism is its motivation by religious belief which makes them
more fanatical. Their unlimited ends lead to unlimited means. 21 As explained by Martha
Crenshaw, an expert on the study of terrorism: “they seek to cause high number of casualties
and are willing to commit suicide or use weapons of mass destruction in order to do so”. 22

Moreover, these non-state actors do not have a geographically defined territory, and are
therefore harder to deter. Hence, the proliferation of nuclear weapons promotes international
instability as the likelihood of a nuclear attack from terror groups increases.
Pakistan is an example of a poor and unstable country which has nuclear power,
where there are legitimate concerns about the support for extremist groups, which could com-
promise the nuclear weapons security and therefore cause international stability. “A.Q Khan,
the father of Pakistan's bomb, is suspected of running a network that sold key technologies to
Iran, Libya, and North Korea.”23 Furthermore, it has been claimed that the pakistan military,
which is independent from the civilian leadership and is in charge of the nuclear program, has
handled its nuclear weapons in a risky manner during several crisis with India. 24 Imperfect
humans in imperfect organizations pose a serious threat to international stability. 25 For in-
stance, the Ojheri incident of 1988 created a substantial threat to peace. This consisted on the
explosion of conventional munitions at a secret ammunition dump in Pakistan, which was
confused with an indian attack. 26
Thankfully, the pakistanis did not retaliate. Nonetheless,
false warnings and human error are a crucial argument of anti-proliferation scholars. The
probability of an accidental nuclear war increases with the proliferation of nuclear weapons,
making the international system more unstable.

20 David Lake, “World Politics: Interests, Interactions and Institutions”. (Fourth Edition, 2019). Page 601
21 (Laqueur, 1999) Quote found in “The Psychology of Terrorism :An Agenda for the 21st Century”: Martha
Crenshaw.
22 The Psychology of Terrorism :An Agenda for the 21st Century: Martha Crenshaw. Department of Govern-
ment. Wesleyan University. 2017. Page 441
23 David Lake, “World Politics: Interests, Interactions and Institutions”. (Fourth Edition, 2019). Page 597
24 David Lake, “World Politics: Interests, Interactions and Institutions”. (Fourth Edition, 2019). Page 596
25 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 89
26 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 104
 Preemptive wars for stopping a rival from developing second-strike nuclear forces,
also raise with proliferation. In fact, “the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi considered, but then
rejected, plans to attack Pakistan’s nuclear facilities in the early 1980’s”. 27This makes the in-
ternational system less stable.
In sum, the big fear of nuclear proliferation is that the reckless behavior of only one
actor could catalyze a process of international disorder, and, ultimately, nuclear war. 28

27 The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz. Page 93
28Threat of Nuclear Proliferation: Perception and Reality: Jacques E. C. Hymans. Page 281
Conclusion

The support or opposition to nuclear proliferation comes down to one question: can
weapons of mass destruction be used as a force of peace, or do they increase the risk of nu-
clear war?
International stability can be benefited by nuclear weapons, as seen in the cold war
conflict. The fact that both the US and the USSR had atomic bombs prevented a full scale
military clash. However, their further proliferation can be a problem if the states that acquire
them do not have the capacity to safeguard their nuclear arsenal. Even though history has
proven that nuclear deterrence works, the facts remain that if a weapon of these characteris-
tics falls into the wrong hands, a terrorist organization or a reckless state, the consequences
would be catastrophic. The more the countries that have it, the more likely this event be-
comes.
On this account, although nuclear proliferation can be a good strategy for balancing
power, I do not agree with their continuous propagation being positive for the world’s stabil-
ity. All it takes is one mistake for infinite disaster.
 Bibliography

1.The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. A debate Renewed: Scott D. Sagan & Kenneth N Waltz.

2.Threat of Nuclear Proliferation: Perception and Reality: Jacques E. C. Hymans.

3. David Lake, “World Politics: Interests, Interactions and Institutions”. (Fourth Edition,
2019)

4. The Psychology of Terrorism :An Agenda for the 21st Century: Martha Crenshaw. Depart-
ment of Government. Wesleyan University. 2017.

5. Indo-Pakistani-Wars.Wikipedia. Last accessed 22/04/2020

6. Theory of International Politics: Kenneth Waltz. (1979 by Addison-Wesley Publishing

Company, Inc. Philippines copyright 1979 by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc)

7. Enver Hasani REFLECTIONS ON WEAK STATES AND OTHER SOURCES OF

INTERNATIONAL (IN)STABILITY.

8. Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers,
Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981)

9. Total Casualties | The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Docu-
ments. Last accessed: 21/04/2020

10. Nuclear Iran. John Mearsheimer vs. Dov Zakheim Last Accessed: 23/04/2020